a) IF confronting players with a decision between creatures, why confront them only once and only as late as your last unit and

b) why making it EITHER/OR when you could leave it to the economy to decide for players (going for 2 Champions will massively improve your army strength but also massively strain your economy - I mean, when you play a smaller map, it's TOTALLY up to you how many different creature dwellings you build and how many you will upgrade.

In practise, look at, say, the Sylvans. If the map is smaller, it's a decision of upgrades vs. levels - will I go for Champion or will I grade the Elites up (and hire out considering the extreme amounts of creatures you can get with creature governance heroes and external dwellings), but on a larger map it ALWAYS amounts to Dragons vs. Treants and that comes with its own suck factor because the REAL decision would be Pixies vs. Dragons, considering the abilities of Dryads.

Bottom line is, the feature is like the whole game - aimlessly and cluelessly decided on a feature and half-assed implementation with the really stale taste of "this could have been done so much better".

I agree with you on that one JJ, I think I summarized a good system along those lines in my guide, which I encourage people to read.

Stevie said:16. Expand on the popular and on demand player choice. My take on how it could be adequately done:
• Around 10 recruitable creatures per faction;
• 4 tiers in total - Core (T1), Veteran (T2), Elite (T3) and Champion (T4);
• Standard spread would be 4x T1, 3x T2, 2x T3 and 1x T4, although minor variation could exist depending on faction for diversity's sake.
• Non-exclusive choices! Only economical and strategic ones. You can theoretically recruit everything but your economy will hurt so you'd have to tread carefully. There's only that much town income can sustain.

Plus, give the option to start without a village already built for you to rule or, to simply conquer one as to position yourself on the map as a true contender to rule the whole map.

Second, to truly include civilians in all of the possible factions of the game that, in turn, show gradual growth and, seeing civilians establishing themselves into farming villages and, might even splash out of that territory start establishing themselves in an unoccupied neighboring territory(ies). Seeing the possibility of recruiting way more level one troops up to one hundred per week. Including the option of the possibility of having a troops training facility as to grow your upper levels of troops by sacrificing up to three quarters of the level one troops in order to increasing drastically the numbers of the higher specialized core and elite levels. Same could be done for increasing slightly the generation of Champion units by building a creature enhancing facility in that same town.

Third, Forts can grow into a true fortified town with possibility of generating all the military units up to level 6. Or, simply put the option of founding a well defensible Fort from scratch that generates all core units right at very foundation of the settlement. Plus, official settlement means area of control already in effect; Thus flagging every dwelling that generate more of the core troops that the fortified village generates already.

Fourth, the option to start with a Capitol City with all dwellings built with the upgrades made also. In order to have an all war and conquest of all enemies with the sole goal in mind of dominating the whole map no matter the cost of your troops(RISK approach).

I didn't mind alternative champions, it is one way to diversify the lineups. It's just that it would operate so much better within a framework than a 'standalone feature'. But then I'm sure everyone would like to see a dynamic lineup where each tier has one alternative dwelling and some units with no or dual upgrades.

Being able to build both champions.. That would probably take too long to setup or require more affordable champion dwellings and I'm not sure I'd like either. Suppose you build 2nd champion dwelling week 4-5, every other stack in the game will be huge by that point and it would take some more weeks to bridge the gap. It's a nice option for really long games but not something that would see much play in online games.
____________
Have you ever tried blind fold archery? You don't know what you're missing!

Elvin, being able to do something is something else than actually doing it. Having options is akin to having rope to hang yourself. You should always have an option to overreach, otherwise things become too similar, too predictable and in the end boring and repetitive.

Or if you've captured a developed Town from the enemy, where you just need to build the other Champion building to start its production there, too.
____________
The last Reasonable Steward of Good Game Design and a Responsible Hero of HC. - Verriker

In Heroes 5, it happens to me a lot. That the strongest AI(winner against most of the neighbouring other AIs)gets to sacrifice upgrading the lower tiers and ends developing the town to a full size City with all levels built(1 to 7).

That kind of behaviour is quite exceptional and considered to be a very good tactic of development in large maps but, that it gets to do it on a small map, just weakens it position to proper defend itself against a much higher in levels of an enemy hero(human player mainly). Least probable for it to be able to stage an all assault to the main capital of the human player. Especially if, the human player managed to capture the majority of the other cities that were in its grasp before hand. That AI(strongest and last one standing against the human player), no longer has the gold necessary to hire the elite troops + Champion ones either.

@Reptile: All these suggestions affect the un-modded Heroes 5:TotE. only.

In Heroes 7, I started to appreciate the awesome improvements of the A.I. of within the RMG made maps.

It creeps its mines really fast and, does use both creature forts(core and elite). The A.I. ends up with a somewhat higher in levels of a main attacking hero and, brings a whole army of all 6 different units with it.

In the mean time, I had only the time to get the core creatures' fort and, amass enough core troops of the 3 kinds of them to repel the attacking A.I.'s army.

Only my human intellect and, superior battlefield's experience + knowledge at confronting a larger army than my own, gave me the opportunity to absorb their continuous attacks from all sides. The War-Cries are the only mass spells that really made a difference at boosting both the speed + initiative towards defending and counter-attacking with equal speed. Over one hundred Marksmen(upgraded and un-upgraded archers alike) did the most of the killing of the Necromancers' army at almost point blank range(2 to 3 hexes away).

In conclusion, version 2.2.1 did hit the bulls' eye spot compared to version 2.0.0 or 2.1.0 when it comes to an improved A.I. efficiency.

To begin with, I must say that I'm probably not the best player out there but I've been playing Heroes games on-and-off since H2 came out, and I've played every single installation of the series extensively, including all the expansions, except for H1 and H7 with which I have limited experience. I'm probably one of the most liberal fans out there, taking each installation by itself, at least trying to give credit to the decision process that went into the choices made, and basically going along with it instead of comparing one to another. That enabled me to enjoy each and every game, despite their respective flaws. Each installation between H3 and H6 brought in some rather drastic choices; some were great ideas, some were not; some worked, some did not.

H7 is where I draw the line though. It showed too glaringly that Ubi and Limbic just choked. Not only the game is embarrassingly (at least I would be if my name was in credits), disappointingly and sadly riddled with bugs, it seems like they just did not have the sophistication, vision and self-esteem to bring something new and refreshing to the table. Or, they just did not care. In any case, it shows too glaringly that the franchise has come to a point of complete halt, dull and irrelevant when compared to the current state of the rich habitat of games out there.

So I agree with the sentiment in the OP and believe that Heroes franchise needs to innovate in order to become more appealing and challenging (for single player) and engaging (for multiple players) in order for it to be relevant once again. It is at its core, and should remain as, a turn-based strategy but I believe it should embrace more of the RPG elements that IMO enriches the TBS experience.

RPG elements have been increasingly there, with H4 as the outlier that got a ton of great ideas badly implemented which rightfully put-off a lot of fans. As you know, the whole idea of hero development and artifacts are RPG elements that everyone now embraces as a core component of the franchise. I think it needs to build more on that by, like it or not, borrowing some ideas from H4 and implementing them better in a way that suits the TBS experience.

Another element that since H5 has been a part of the franchise that (unfortunately merely) somewhat contributes to the RPG element is the 3D implementation, which probably will be there in any future incarnation of the series. Some fans dislike the 3D aspect because it does not contribute to the TBS experience, and they are right. The thing is, I don't think it was ever thought to do so... Plus, it was never implemented in a thoughtful way that actually contributes to the gameplay, but rather as a must-have in the graphics-laden age of the 21st century games. It is largely , though not completely, a fancy-looking gimmick of sorts in H5, H6 and H7.

For the multiplayer, we have seen in years some advancements in the form of duels for quick battles, but to me it's not a full Heroes experience. H6 tried and failed with the Dynasty idea. Sure we have simultaneous turns but I believe there are huge missed opportunities in this department.

All in all, here are my first takes on what can be done to make the franchise "better," with the definition in the first sentence:

Battles:

H7 is on the right track with battlefield elements actually influencing the battle. I have also embraced the flanking idea; it is definitely more than a gimmick. What I would like to see more is more interactive and dynamic battle sites that not only influence the battles through local effects (e.g. hills that give attack/defense bonuses, hide-behind objects against shooters which is there in H7, quicksand and water puddles and terrain [ice, mud, burned-soil] that influence creature attributes like movement range and morale [and potentially even inflict damage], shrines and other spots that give magical and other bonuses and curses, etc) but also can be reformed through spells and other abilities; directly applicable to hills, quicksand, puddles, icy spots that can be formed as direct spells or side-effects of some spells, obstacles and objects and means to overturn obstacles such as spells that build bridges (over obstacles or terrain) or ladders (in siege battles), object-breaking spells, temporary (but potentially multiple-turn) one- or two-way portals (yes, in the battle), etc, etc.

Battlefield dimensions is an important factor, and a more dynamic and unpredictable approach would enrich the experience; think about non-rectangular battlefields, think about everything about it being randomized (so reloads and replays will play differently).

Only very few of these ideas has yet been implemented across the series...

Among other things, Heroes 4 also had simultaneous retaliations. I believe this can be brought back in a better way, being tied to a skill, such that your stack would be simultaneously retaliated by 50% down to 0% of the enemy stack as this skill progresses. Some creature abilities would tie to this property as well...

Heroes:

Heroes is the name of the game, but they are not in the game as much as they should be. Sure, they cast spells and (since H4) engage in direct contact, and they influence army statistics, but is that enough to deservedly be called a "Heroes" game. I believe not. Hero development and interactions between heroes should be more in focus. I am of the camp that would supports random skill development, and also the class system that gives direction to the randomization.

In terms of hero interactions, spell sharing and mentoring are crucial, but how about armies that involve multiple heroes? I know, some of you are cringing, but hear it out. You're cringing because you automatically think about the H4 implementation, where the heroes were actually on the battlefield as basically Goliath of creatures, which meant that the battle was not lost when all creatures died and you could have hero-only armies that could win battles and creep around. H4's mistake was essentially that.

Imagine in an army multiple (say, up to 4) heroes who act like in H7. The benefits are clear: you can not only combine army-boosting skills and artifacts (although how they stack should be thought through... probably no-stacking but rather taking the greater contribution among the heroes is the way to go), you can cast multiple spells in a turn (it's possible to tie this to a number of factors, the number of heroes that can act in a turn being tied to a skill, novice heroes never getting a turn beside experienced ones, etc.). On the other hand, there are trade-offs: 1) more heroes means less armies (each hero taking a slot), and the battle is lost when armies are lost, which means that although in the end battle it feels like you would want to have multiple heroes on the sideline for unleashing more spells, when you have to decide between a huge stack of core creatures and another hero, the decision will not be trivial; 2) experience gained would have to be divided among the heroes involved, and it would be distributed according to the current (before battle) experience levels, which means slower hero development. At the end, multiple heroes will not be the best choice at all times, but would definitely increase variations and enrich gameplay.

3D:
Like it or not, 3D Heroes is here to stay. However, in the adventure screen, it needs a proper implementation that brings something to the table, rather than being an annoyance.

For it to happen, I believe the game requires two modes that work simultaneously: 1) a 3D mode where you see the terrain rather close-up by default, like in the most-zoomed-in camera angle, but you can zoom-out a little (not all the way out) and rotate the camera 360 degrees. This mode would be for those who would like to have a rather RPG-like adventure screen experience. 2) a pseudo-3D mode, like in H4, where the same adventure map is displayed from the top (using isometric or perspective approach), using the same 3D objects and characters but laid out in a way that does not require zooming in, or rotating, but only panning.

This way, a player can use only the pseudo-3D mode, especially those with lower-end hardware, also those who just hate the full 3D idea. At the same time, a player relishing the RPG-like immersion through 3D can play in the 3D mode, only from time to time visiting the other screen to see the big-picture. One definite drawback of the 3D is having to do major zoom-outs and rotations to get that big-picture of the whole map. This way, it would be available in a single-click, with the pseudo-3D screen being able to act like a blown-out minimap.

Creatures:
Everybody here would agree that creatures should be diverse in their statistics and abilities. Also that H6 had way too many, H7 way too little of abilities... Most games had upgrades, H4 did not, H5 had one too many. All games had Champions, H7 had two to pick from. I like the H7 implementation of the squad (with super-core and super-elites, it basically had 5 tiers in 7 slots), except for having two Champions -- I'd rather have one. Each army would have at most 8 slots (one slot to be used by each Hero included, with at least one Hero).

Now about the upgrades, I have a rather radical idea. This is only because I find the whole upgrade institution too synthetic, and like to see a mechanism that is more organic. Instead of regular upgrades, each creature or (depending on the creatures) pairs of creatures could either be 1) trained , or 2) combined into a new unit.

Training:
Any creature can be trained. This is to improve their stats and/or abilities, or gain a new ability, NOT to morph them into some other Tier like in H5. Unlike the current upgrades, training does not require a new building, but rather a hero with a particular training skill. It would also require some gold/resources per creature.

Combining Two Units into One:
You have a Goblin, you have a Boar. Combine them to get a Boar Rider. This is the idea. Not all creature pairs can be combined, of course. For each faction, I envision at most two pairings, if at all. Combined unit, eg a Boar Rider, would have its own statistics and abilities, meaningfully derived from the creatures in it (not necessarily direct addition).

I also thought about cross-breeding as a third alternative but that would require much more effort in creature designs and a fitting lore... Still, it's an idea.

Along with the above, I believe mini creature artifacts (similar to Artificer ability in H5, but with much less impact) can be implemented as a universal means of stat-boosting. You could find these artifacts on the adventure map and/or artifact merchants.

AI:

Need I say, a good AI is a must for a fulfilling Heroes experience. How to achieve that, I don't know.

Multiplayer:

I don't have very concrete ideas on how to improve the multiplayer adventure map environment, other than say that a working rendition of simultaneous turns should be implemented. I wouldn't like continuous gameplay, killing the whole turn-based framework, but some form of simultaneous turns should be there for a smooth multiplayer experience.

We have duels, how about triple-army battles? Think about being able to engage in a three-way on the same battlefield! It may be implemented like how the duels are, or it may be enabled in a regular multiplayer game, where armies of the same team might (under specific conditions) gang-up on a common enemy army.